Posted on 12/17/2009 11:29:53 AM PST by jazusamo
No inspector general can unearth corruption without access to his office, computer or staff. An "administrative leave" putting an IG in that position has the same effect, for all intents and purposes, as an immediate firing. That's the basic logic behind former Inspector General Gerald Walpin's lawsuit demanding at least temporary reinstatement to his job as watchdog at the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). New revelations about the case from two lawmakers indicate that there is good reason to suspect duplicity from those who helped force Mr. Walpin's overnight removal in June.
In the past 10 days, two major developments have occurred. First, Obama administration attorneys continued their efforts to deny Mr. Walpin his day in court. On Dec. 7, they filed reply briefs rearguing their demand that the case be dismissed without even a hearing. Second, Rep. Darrell Issa of California and Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, both Republicans, have openly questioned the honesty of CNCS Chairman Alan D. Solomont. Most explosively of all, dirty deeds may have been employed to hide extensive involvement in the affair by the office of first lady Michelle Obama, whom the White House months earlier had announced would play "a central role in the national service agenda."
Mr. Walpin's suit claims that President Obama did not abide by the requirement in the Inspector General Act that IGs be given 30 days' notice before being "removed" from office. Mr. Walpin instead was placed on "paid administrative leave" for 30 days. The new administration brief argues that such "leave" does not constitute "removal."
Mr. Walpin's suit explained that the entire reason for the 30-day-notice requirement is to ward off political interference with ongoing investigations. The administrative leave that denied him access to all the tools of his job, he contended, effectively "removed"...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
tsk tsk tsk MaShell
One would think she might have learned a lesson after “agreeing” to “surrender” her law license in Illinois under circumstances which the media has never asked or explored
~!PING!
Absolutely! The enemedia didn’t talk about that and they don’t seem to want to talk about this, other than The Washington Times.
I am still not understanding this issue. The guy was given 30 leave, with pay, and then dismissed.
What is the issue?
My take: she's in it up to the bottom of her boob belt. Notice how she stopped doing anything along those lines as soon as this began to break ?
This has been talked about on FR and I personally couldn’t verify it but in light of this article there could be something to it.
Michelle’s brother Craig Robinson, basketball coach for Oregon State is said to be a friend of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson who’s mixed up in this thing through Americorps and the investigation by Walpin.
Just looking that over and your earlier post from last month. I am starting to see it a little differently.
Surely you jest...the person responsible to investigate the inappropriate use of tax money finds big problems and he is removed because the responsible folks are close to the first family...that stinks to high heaven...
It’s political, out with the old, in with the new.
The issue seems more centered on rules not being followed, regarding protocal. It looks as if the Senate was to be informed 30 days prior to dismissal.
Now the T&C’s may not say something like “Walpin is to continue performing his duties and fulfill his obligations up and until the last day.
It seems you can skirt the rules if it doesn’t say that, by giving him 30 days notice.
I have quit many jobs, asked to leave the day I turned in my two week notice and still received compensation for the next two weeks.
They could just as easily have me hang around and paint, though it would not be my job description.
Hmmmmm, now just where have we seen this before?
The issue is that he was taken out of his office, away from his files computer, etc. so that any investigation going forward (like ACORN, for instance) was effectively stopped. He was marched out of his office and locked out--THAT is the issue.
When you are given 30 days notice, you stay in your office and tie up loose ends, etc.
vaudine
NO LAWYER surrenders their Law License unless they are way to Old to use it or they are FORCED to surrender it or Face
Impending Charges! Just look at how hard Bill Clinton and Sandy (SOCKS) Berger fought to keep theirs a mere suspension! Sure, there will be Flamers to jump on this and defend the OBOZOS, but just check with your Lawyer Friendsto prove my statements. Mrs. OBOZO was faced with an impending Court Public Trial, and the onlt way to prevent that was to surrender the License. M OBOZO surrendered his about the time people questioned his answer to did he ever go by another alias and his answer was officially “NO!” That was a Lie, because everyone knows that he was legally Barry Soetoro for a long period of time, who happened to be an Indonesian Citizen and most probably registered as a Foreign Student at Occidental College where he was registered as Barry Soetoro. Oh WELL! Why would this I.G. Sacking be a surprize with these two characters pulling the strings??
Just WHY do you think the law controlling this was written to require the 30 day notice if it was not to prevent this sort of retaliation against a person charged with the responsibility to investigate this kind of misappropriation of public funds?
She could KILL someone and nothing and nobody would snag her....she’s UNTOUCHABLE...so is he because they are BLACK DEMOCRATS.....witness CHARLIE RANGEL!!
She SURRENDERED her LAW LICENSE?? Are you SURE?? Where did you read that?? Does BAMMY have a LAW LICENSE??? hmmmmm.
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaWife.htm
Suspended From The Practice Of Law
Michelle Obama has been described as a “distinguished attorney” despite the fact that Michelle Obama has been “inactive” since 1993.
Michelle has been on court ordered inactive status with the Illinois State Attorneys bar from 1993, after only 4 years of practicing law. What did she do?
This Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) suspension is for discipline reasons...not for those volunteering to stop practicing. It is COURT ORDERED...not “Michelle Obama ordered.” Their website is very clear about their function and why they step in.
An attorney, points out, “sounds more to me like she was drummed right out of the practice of law. I am just dying to know what she did... she ran to have a court ordered inactive status done...and then no malpractice report needed to be provided.
She wanted this to “go away” fast and furious and the details not come out in depositions, courtroom documents, rulings for the client/plaintiffs...etc..
The ARDC is the agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois which registers attorneys and investigates complaints of misconduct filed against attorneys holding a license to practice law in Illinois.
Their principal purpose is to assist the Supreme Court to determine a lawyer’s fitness to practice law in Illinois. If a complaint is made that an attorney, licensed to practice law in Illinois, has engaged in illegal, unethical or dishonest conduct, they will investigate and, if warranted, bring formal disciplinary charges. The Supreme Court of Illinois will then ultimately decide if a lawyer should be censured (publicly rebuked), suspended (having the law license to practice either taken away for a certain period of time or placed on a probationary period) or disbarred (having the law license taken away indefinitely).
The ARDC cannot impose fines, imprison, obtain monetary damages, enforce remedies between the lawyer and client, or seek civil or criminal relief against a lawyer as part of the disciplinary process. They can affect only the lawyer’s ability to practice law in Illinois.
They are not funded by taxpayers’ money. They are funded entirely by the annual registration fees paid by attorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois.
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaWife.htm
Well, Thanky...I had no idea she got her law license taken away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.